Varus's self-censoring is peculiar for a bunch of reasons. It's not like a couple of choice asterisks are going to trick any of us into thinking that he's a kindhearted man of courtesies. And if he was the least bit concerned about getting banned, it wouldn't have already happened a dozen times.

If you were competent enough to even aspire to be a half-wit you'd know how to say fuck. Then again, you haven't even approached quarter-wit yet since you censor words that don't get changed. You should have stuck with your original Christian story. At least it was almost plausible.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

So does this mean everytime someone calls me stupid, or something like it, i'm in fact the opposite because obviously they couldn't reasonably formulate an expressive thought beyond "you're stupid"? So that must mean, in fact, i'm the opposite of stupid.

You know those people of yours? You really should replace them if this is the best thinking they can do.

You would have to. That's akin to imagining I know what einstein was thinking when he split the atom.

Quote:

can't reasonabley formulate an expressive thought out response

So does this mean everytime someone calls me stupid, or something like it, i'm in fact the opposite because obviously they couldn't reasonably formulate an expressive thought beyond "you're stupid"? So that must mean, in fact, i'm the opposite of stupid.

They call you stupid because it takes no thought process to realize that you are in fact, stupid.

They didn't qualify because they weren't any better than the other guy. AA is supposed to work where, given two equally qualified candidates, you choose the minority or disadvantaged person (this also applies to folks with disabilities) on the assumption that the non-minority is going to have an easier time finding a job elsewhere, which is generally true.

However, if one candidate is clearly, or even just slightly more qualified in any way, then they get the job, regardless of minority status or not.

Except that's not even remotely how AA programs work. The most clear example is in education (admissions and scholarships). Universities measure each student by essentially applying points to each thing about the student. So your grades are factored in, your economic status is factored in, sports activities are factored in, and other extracurricular activities are as well. On top of this, you get additional points simply for being a minority. The result is exactly to make an otherwise less qualified applicant rank higher than they otherwise would solely because of their skin color.

In the job market, it's a little less obvious, but basically companies are rated based on how "diverse" their workforce is. If your company doesn't meet those diversity requirements (which aren't quotas btw, cause they don't call them that anymore!), then they don't qualify for certain things. This could be government contracts, tax breaks, and a host of sometimes subtle, but definitely significant other things (like inclusions in "best places to work" lists and whatnot, which do have an effect on company visibility). This is a bit less direct, but basically if there are sufficient qualified minority workers in an area, AA doesn't do anything, but if there aren't, it has the effect of forcing companies to hire more minority workers to meet the diversity requirements. While we could speculate that perhaps all the extra minority workers are just as qualified as those the company would have hired absent the AA policies, it seems unlikely that's going to be the case all the time, or even more than a small minority of the time.

For the most part, AA works to put less qualified minority applicants ahead of more qualified non-minority applicants. Well, unless you really do believe that racism is so rampant and such a huge factor that business owners would normally and constantly hire less qualified white applicants ahead of more qualified minority ones. And while I'm sure you can find the occasional case of this happening, it's incredibly silly to assume it's so rampant that we need to apply some sort of global balance to offset it. A company which regularly hires less capable people because they are white will find itself losing in the marketplace to a company which just hires people based on their actual qualifications. The idea that we should institute in our laws a system forcing companies to weight people based on their race and not their qualifications just seems like the exact wrong thing to do.

For the most part, AA works to put less qualified minority applicants ahead of more qualified non-minority applicants. Well, unless you really do believe that racism is so rampant and such a huge factor that business owners would normally and constantly hire less qualified white applicants ahead of more qualified minority ones.

No, AA doesn't work to put less qualified minorities ahead of the poor picked on white guy. It works on putting those as equally qualified on equal footing. Yes, people who hire other people do carry with them long-standing stereotypes...we all do. AA attempts to negate them.

Honeslty gbaji, your inability, or perhaps unwillingness to grasp reality is pretty annoying. I understand you have problems with relationships????

My employer's AA procedures used to assign points for qualification. Minority status would garner you a couple extra points. For job applications the top five point scorers were required to be interviewed. Once the interview process begins it had no further role. It was changed up a few years ago. Now it's pretty much a message that says 'don't discriminate'.

AA Policy Statement wrote:

Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy Statement The Office of the Attorney General shall continue to pursue a policy of non-discrimination in all employment actions, practices, procedures and conditions of employment.

Employment decisions will be based on the principles of equal employment opportunity. Recruitment, testing, selection, and promotion will be administered without regard to race or color, ***, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry or national origin, whistleblower activity, previous assertion of a claim or right under the Maine Workers' Compensation Act, marital status, or genetic information unless a bona fide occupational qualification exists.

Further, personnel actions and conditions of employment, such as compensation, benefits, layoffs, job assignments, employee development opportunities and discipline shall be administered without regard to race or color, ***, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry or national origin, whistleblower activity, previous assertion of a claim or right under the Maine Workers' Compensation Act, marital status, or genetic information.

Reasonable accommodations will be made for any qualified individual, applicant or employee, in accordance with the provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Managers and supervisors are responsible for awareness of and response to potential discriminatory situations. Employees are required to cooperate fully with the investigation and/or resolution of any discrimination complaint.

Managers and supervisors are required to actively prevent and correct retaliation or harassment toward any employee who has been involved in the filing, investigation, or resolution of a discrimination claim.

The Office will address and attempt to resolve employee complaints regarding discrimination and harassment as expeditiously as possible. Supervisors and managers are required to contact the Office EEO Coordinator if they receive a complaint of this nature.

This policy shall not be construed to prohibit any employment action or policy which is required by federal law, rule or executive order.

On a side note, I found out this last weekend that I was 3.125% African. It's only moderately interesting because my great great uncle was cut from the Red Sox because they found out that his grandfather was a freed slave. He was outed by a 1912 Boston Herald expose, I hear, so that's just another reason to hate the Boston Herald.

Elinda, just so you know, depending on how the particulars of your employer's point system works (disclaimer: I didn't read the quoted excerpt), you may have just proved gbaji right.

You admittedly didn't read my post but are making claims about it's content. good one.

At the time, I hadn't read the quote of the "AA Policy", as it took a while to read on my tiny phone (I'm on a train!). I did give it a quick skim though. Just finished reading it, and I don't see anything that invalidates what I said.

10 people passed the first round of application cuts with scores of 75 or higher. Two of them actually only had a score of 73, but they got 2 bonus points for minority status. The scores are as follows:

Candidates 5 and 6 are equally qualified. Candidate 6 will receive the interview invitation, whereas candidate 5 will not. Candidates 1-4 don't receive the interview invitation regardless of race, because they are not as qualified as candidates 5-10. Candidate 5 will have an easier time finding a job elsewhere than candidate 6, being he is a white male and #6 is a traditionally discriminated against group. #6 gets the interview, but has no further advantage due to her minority status in the application process, and will probably lose out to candidates 9 or 10, who are both more qualified than candidates five AND six were.

It sounds like since Elinda's office changed from a formal scoring system, candidates 5 and 6 would be considered tied and would both be invited for the interview, or neither of them would.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 1:09pm by catwho

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

10 people passed the first round of application cuts with scores of 75 or higher. Two of them actually only had a score of 73, but they got 2 bonus points for minority status. The scores are as follows:

Candidates 5 and 6 are equally qualified. Candidate 6 will receive the interview invitation, whereas candidate 5 will not. Candidates 1-4 don't receive the interview invitation regardless of race, because they are not as qualified as candidates 5-10. Candidate 5 will have an easier time finding a job elsewhere than candidate 6, being he is a white male and #6 is a traditionally discriminated against group. #6 gets the interview, but has no further advantage due to her minority status in the application process, and will probably lose out to candidates 9 or 10, who are both more qualified than candidates five AND six were.

It sounds like since Elinda's office changed from a formal scoring system, candidates 5 and 6 would be considered tied and would both be invited for the interview, or neither of them would.

Edited, Dec 8th 2011 1:09pm by catwho

Just noticed that somehow when I read her post I missed the part where she said that her employer changed away from that system. I had read it as just being a previous employer. Regardless, the fact that it was a system that was in place somewhere should probably serve to show that there isn't a unifying policy in place, and that some of them may toe the line a bit. I think it's probably safe to say that employers probably vary to both sides of that position, some erring more on the side of hiring for race, some erring on the side of hiring for qualification. And of course, said employers could vary on that position from hire to hire, situation to situation. And I don't have a clue of what percentage of employers would handle it in any given way.

The question I'd wonder about is "does AA cause less-qualified minority employees to be hired ever?" And I think it's probably a given that it does.

Anyways, here's an example of the situation that I was alluding to:

Say that there are 6 candidates for the job. 5 are white, 1 is black. 5 are going to get an interview. All of the candidates score say, a 10 except for one white candidate (9) and the black candidate (8). The black candidate gets a 2 point bump, and gets into the interview. He's then beat out one better qualified candidate.

S'all just hypothetical...I don't know how the point system worked in reality.

Elinda, just so you know, depending on how the particulars of your employer's point system works (disclaimer: I didn't read the quoted excerpt), you may have just proved gbaji right.

You admittedly didn't read my post but are making claims about it's content. good one.

The point system was an example of AA, and did exactly what I was talking about (putting less qualified minorities ahead of more qualified white applicants). The new guidelines in the quote is *not* AA. If your policies do not weigh minority status when considering hiring, acceptance, or whatever, then it's *not* AA. Can't think of any way to make this more clear than that. If your current policies do not give minorities and advantage simply because they are minorities, then those policies are not affirmative action based.

The question I'd wonder about is "does AA cause less-qualified minority employees to be hired ever?" And I think it's probably a given that it does.

Yes, it does. Because that's exactly what it is designed to do. Any methodology which doesn't give some kind of point bump (or other equivalent advantage) to minorities simply for being a minority isn't an AA methodology.

Another way to look at it is to think about when AA doesn't have any effect at all. If there are ten applicants and 10 openings, then AA doesn't factor in, but it wasn't needed. If there are 5 openings and all 5 of the best applicants are minorities, then they get the jobs and AA didn't factor in (but again, wasn't needed). The only case in which AA changes the hiring/acceptance result is precisely when a better qualified white candidate is bumped from the list because a less qualified minority applicant received an extra couple points due to AA.

That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.

The point system that used AA would not, however, guarantee the applicant a job, just that initial foot in the door. The company was still more likely to go with the candidate with the best score on that application, assuming they weren't a socially awkward penguin.

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

The point system that used AA would not, however, guarantee the applicant a job, just that initial foot in the door. The company was still more likely to go with the candidate with the best score on that application, assuming they weren't a socially awkward penguin.

Irrelevant though. If the point bump for being a minority makes you the best applicant then you got the job ahead of a more qualified person because of your skin color. If it doesn't, then the AA policy didn't actually change the outcome at all. The point being that the *only* effect AA policies can have is to make less qualified minorities succeed ahead of more qualified non-minorities.

The point system that used AA would not, however, guarantee the applicant a job, just that initial foot in the door. The company was still more likely to go with the candidate with the best score on that application, assuming they weren't a socially awkward penguin.

Irrelevant though. If the point bump for being a minority makes you the best applicant then you got the job ahead of a more qualified person because of your skin color. If it doesn't, then the AA policy didn't actually change the outcome at all. The point being that the *only* effect AA policies can have is to make less qualified minorities succeed ahead of more qualified non-minorities.

Which I suppose begs the question of whether or not the person who looks better on paper was actually the better person for the job.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but I was under the impression that AA was supposed to correct for perceived imbalances in the system. You know things that would result in a white person appearing better for a job because they (on average) had an easier time getting those qualifications.

Hard part is you're replacing a potentially biased metric (qualifications) with something more vague (average 'ideal' distributions of qualifications in a population).

Which I suppose begs the question of whether or not the person who looks better on paper was actually the better person for the job.

/shrug. When that's what you have to look at initially, you go with what you have. That can be true without involving race, so I'm not sure how relevant it is to AA. Certainly, I don't see how deliberately making someone look better on paper because of their race helps that situation.

Quote:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but I was under the impression that AA was supposed to correct for perceived imbalances in the system. You know things that would result in a white person appearing better for a job because they (on average) had an easier time getting those qualifications.

To the degree this may be true, the correct solution is to eliminate the unfair/racial imbalances rather than create another imbalance on the assumption that it'll balance things out. The former actually fixes the problem. The latter just hides the symptoms and in all probability perpetuates the problem itself.

To illustrate how this perpetuates the problem: Imagine you are in a position to hire someone, and you want to hire the best person for the job. Let's also assume you know that there are AA policies in place which give extra points to minority applicants. You have before you two applicants who both have the same exact "score" (however that's derived, but which you know includes the racial weighting factor). One is black. One is white. Which one do you hire?

To illustrate how this perpetuates the problem: Imagine you are in a position to hire someone, and you want to hire the best person for the job. Let's also assume you know that there are AA policies in place which give extra points to minority applicants. You have before you two applicants who both have the same exact "score" (however that's derived, but which you know includes the racial weighting factor). One is black. One is white. Which one do you hire?

That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.

That is not the point of AA. The intention of AA is to prevent employers from exclusively hiring people in certain areas (or not hiring them at all) purely based on their skin color, nationality or ***.

The reality, rather you agree with it or not, people are hired and positioned based on ***, skin color, age, looks, being family or friends, etc. AA is to combat that, but the biggest downfall for AA is the assumption that they are qualified people of those groups being discriminated against. As a result, you have less qualified people being hired.

That is the main reason why AA is not an effective overall solution. It doesn't address the problem of people of a certain ***, religion, height, look, skin color,etc. not being qualified for the job.

A better AA solution IMO (for everyone) is to have a government ran "Linked-In" type social network where applications are kept on file. When Joe applies for Wal-mart, he puts his application online, if he's not hired, he is told exactly why he wasn't selected. If he's hired then fired or promoted, same deal with an annual "report".

That way, an organization can be randomly audited for unfair treatment

That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.

That is not the point of AA. The intention of AA is to prevent employers from exclusively hiring people in certain areas (or not hiring them at all) purely based on their skin color, nationality or ***.

It is, and it isn't. There's undoubtedly a side of compensation to it, as well. Perhaps that's due to workplace Affirmative Action being inexorably tied to academic Affirmative Action (which is undoubtedly about bolstering minorities on principle).

That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.

That is not the point of AA. The intention of AA is to prevent employers from exclusively hiring people in certain areas (or not hiring them at all) purely based on their skin color, nationality or ***.

It is, and it isn't. There's undoubtedly a side of compensation to it, as well. Perhaps that's due to workplace Affirmative Action being inexorably tied to academic Affirmative Action (which is undoubtedly about bolstering minorities on principle).

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 1:00pm by Eske

I will give you that.

The only thing that somewhat degrades your comment is the fact that there are so many ways to gain assistance for school not based on merit, that you could argue that most of all administration is tied to some form of "AA".

For example, where you live, your parents, being a single parent, sports, being a certain age, alumni, etc. are all valid reasons for unequal treatment not based on any academic merit in an academic environment.

A better AA solution IMO (for everyone) is to have a government ran "Linked-In" type social network where applications are kept on file. When Joe applies for Wal-mart, he puts his application online, if he's not hired, he is told exactly why he wasn't selected. If he's hired then fired or promoted, same deal with an annual "report".

Sorry Joe we don't feel you are qualified for this position because <insert ******** reason here> it is definitely not because you are a <insert race here> with <insert sterotype here>

That's what AA does. That's what it's designed to do. It's somewhat bizarre that anyone is even arguing about this. AA is *not* about equal opportunity. It is about artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about equality at all.

That is not the point of AA. The intention of AA is to prevent employers from exclusively hiring people in certain areas (or not hiring them at all) purely based on their skin color, nationality or ***.

And it attempts to accomplish this by "artificially putting more minorities into college, or more minorities into a given workforce". You're looking at why it's being done. I'm looking at how it does it. The method really does matter here IMO.

Also, the goal isn't as clear as you made it out to be. AA policies do not do anything to prevent minority business owners from employing only their minority. It only acts to ensure a fair distribution of a select set of minorities are hired/accepted in white owned establishments. I guess my problem with it is that if we think it's wrong to base hiring/acceptance decisions based on skin color, nationality, or ***, then how does creating a program that bases hiring/acceptance decisions on skin color, nationality, or *** do anything but perpetuate the problem?

Quote:

The reality, rather you agree with it or not, people are hired and positioned based on ***, skin color, age, looks, being family or friends, etc. AA is to combat that, but the biggest downfall for AA is the assumption that they are qualified people of those groups being discriminated against. As a result, you have less qualified people being hired.

I agree. That's the problem with AA. The only case in which it "works" is when a qualified person is being discriminated against based on race/***/whatever. But how do you measure this? How do you even know it's happening? Unfortunately, most of the time the justification for the need of AA programs is simply by looking at the statistical outcomes. Which gets us back to the same kind of failure to see other causes of those statistical differences that I spoke of earlier.

We've created this boogeyman of racism, absent any significant evidence other than statistics. And in our haste to tell people that the reason their group doesn't succeed as well as another is because of race, we also tell them that they're not as responsible for their own outcomes. Surely you can see how when this is done on a large scale it will actually affect the "true" outcomes of that group and possibly even cause the very statistical differences used to justify the whole mess in the first place?

Quote:

That is the main reason why AA is not an effective overall solution. It doesn't address the problem of people of a certain ***, religion, height, look, skin color,etc. not being qualified for the job.

Correct. It treats people as a generic member of their race, ***, etc. It does *exactly* what it's supposedly supposed to be fighting against. We want employers to treat each applicant as an individual and judge them on their own merits, right? But we create a system which forces employers to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. How does that make sense? IMO, it doesn't.

Quote:

A better AA solution IMO (for everyone) is to have a government ran "Linked-In" type social network where applications are kept on file. When Joe applies for Wal-mart, he puts his application online, if he's not hired, he is told exactly why he wasn't selected. If he's hired then fired or promoted, same deal with an annual "report".

That way, an organization can be randomly audited for unfair treatment

That's better, but not really a solution. No one's going to put "he's a darkie" down as the reason they didn't hire someone. Why not just stop trying to fiddle with the social statistics and let society deal with things naturally? Most employers aren't going to hire or fire people based on their race. And those that do will tend to fail to compete against those who are just hiring the best and firing the worst. Why do we need big government programs to "fix" a problem that should fix itself? Doubly so when the programs themselves may actually be perpetuating the problem.

Trust that most people aren't going to ***** someone because of their skin color. Move on. I honestly don't understand why those who argue the hardest that we need to end racism seem to work the hardest to institutionalize it into our social fabric. We can't end racism as long as we have racist government policies reminding us every single day of just how racist we all are. That just seems like the opposite direction to go.